Page 2 of 17 FirstFirst 123456789101112 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 330

Thread: Turnbulls FTTN

  1. #21
    LSemmens
    lsemmens's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Rural South OZ
    Posts
    10,585
    Thanks
    11,868
    Thanked 7,061 Times in 3,338 Posts
    Rep Power
    3153
    Reputation
    132592

    Default

    Time was when the PMG, then the Telecommunications Commission and so forth, were forced to provide services to all areas of Australia as part of their charter. Now we have competition and Telecom is forced to compete for the almighty $, things are slowly getting worse for the areas that do not provide much in the way of R.O.I., i.e. rural and remote areas. I can see a day coming when the likes of Oodnadatta et. al. will be back to the pedal radio because, eventually, the rules forcing Testra to supply services to the areas will be relaxed and they will be able to compete on a level playing field. Time was when we had one of the best telecommunications infrastructures in the world. Then came "deregulation". Could you imagine any industry where the government says, "you will compete so we are going to allow a competitor in and you must give them access to your infrastructure". Sorta like forcing Gerry Harvey to turn over half his floorspace to ALDI.
    I'm out of my mind, but feel free to leave a message...



  • #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    693
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked 217 Times in 139 Posts
    Rep Power
    262
    Reputation
    2138

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LeroyPatrol View Post
    Wireless is already out there. I think the NBN is the biggest waste of money ever and could have used more productively. Let the Telco's upgrade their own infrastructure if need be.

    Leroy
    Wireless can NEVER compete with dedicated fibre. It is SHARED media, so the more users, the slower the throughput. It is very similar in concept to dial up modems. There is a limit to the actual bps that can be carried on any given spectrum - greater throughput is achieved by fancy encoding methods. You can think of this as a code that uses a single letter to represent a word or phrase. This also has limitations in terms of processor speed, reliability and data recovery (e.g. from corrupted transmission). These issues can be overcome to some degree by using more wireless spectrum or increasing the density of base stations or both. However there is also very limited spectrum available, and enormous costs in building more stations. The costs of wireless to end users is far greater than fixed infrastructure (ADSL, FTTN, FTTP) as can be seen by a comparison of mobile data costs and caps compared to ADSL.

  • The Following User Says Thank You to jgm For This Useful Post:

    Uncle Fester (27-10-15)

  • #23
    Premium Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Central Tablelands of NSW
    Age
    81
    Posts
    13,824
    Thanks
    1,242
    Thanked 3,806 Times in 2,525 Posts
    Rep Power
    1797
    Reputation
    56986

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jgm View Post
    Wireless can NEVER compete with dedicated fibre. It is SHARED media, so the more users, the slower the throughput. It is very similar in concept to dial up modems. There is a limit to the actual bps that can be carried on any given spectrum - greater throughput is achieved by fancy encoding methods. You can think of this as a code that uses a single letter to represent a word or phrase. This also has limitations in terms of processor speed, reliability and data recovery (e.g. from corrupted transmission). These issues can be overcome to some degree by using more wireless spectrum or increasing the density of base stations or both. However there is also very limited spectrum available, and enormous costs in building more stations. The costs of wireless to end users is far greater than fixed infrastructure (ADSL, FTTN, FTTP) as can be seen by a comparison of mobile data costs and caps compared to ADSL.
    What jgm says is what I was very pathetically trying to say but couldnt as clearly and concisely as he has.
    With wireless you cant just keep adding frequencies to carry the volume of traffic but with cable, Optic Fibre in particular which has several fibres in each cable, should one ever reach its capacity, all you have to do is connect another with no interference to any other and its interference free from almost all external noises.
    Correct me if I am wrong but I believe 2 fibres are used, with each handling 'traffic' in one direction only and I have no idea just much 'traffic' each can handle, let alone be compared to either Copper or a Wireless system.
    I stand unequivicably behind everything I say , I just dont ever remember saying it !!

  • #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    693
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked 217 Times in 139 Posts
    Rep Power
    262
    Reputation
    2138

    Default

    Yes gordon_s1942, 2 fibres are used as they effectively unidirectional. At present there is no need to add additional fibres, as home equipment is a long way from being able to handle the maximum demonstrated capacity (over 100Tbps), and that limit is being continuously pushed out in various labs around the world.

  • The Following User Says Thank You to jgm For This Useful Post:

    gordon_s1942 (27-10-15)

  • #25
    Premium Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Central Tablelands of NSW
    Age
    81
    Posts
    13,824
    Thanks
    1,242
    Thanked 3,806 Times in 2,525 Posts
    Rep Power
    1797
    Reputation
    56986

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jgm View Post
    Yes gordon_s1942, 2 fibres are used as they effectively unidirectional. At present there is no need to add additional fibres, as home equipment is a long way from being able to handle the maximum demonstrated capacity (over 100Tbps), and that limit is being continuously pushed out in various labs around the world.
    its this capacity that makes it 'Overkill' to run FTTH but the other side is that it in theory will still be in use long after the copper wire has reverted to its original state and apart from being interference free should require almost no maintenance over its long life time.
    I stand unequivicably behind everything I say , I just dont ever remember saying it !!

  • #26
    Banned

    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    tassie
    Posts
    449
    Thanks
    25
    Thanked 265 Times in 120 Posts
    Rep Power
    0
    Reputation
    5329

    Default

    If we laid fibre to every home and business, we'd secure our communications and data transfer speeds for the future for everyone. We'd lower any future cost of updating and drive Aus based technology business. It would also open up many small online business with the same speeds no matter where they were, giving everyone and equal footing to work on.

    We'd have a system enabling communications across the country instantly, long term cost effective, ease of maintenance and reasonably secure. Fully underground systems are more reliable, safer and normally survive dramatic surface events.

    Satellite, is shocking, had that before for many years and even when we switched to the NBN, it was still shocking and expensive compared to when in a city business.

    Fibre to a box on the street corner, then copper to the home, offers very restricted date transfer speeds, prone to deterioration very insecure, lots of maintenance, interference and long term very expensive.

    No guesses as to why they are choosing 19th century based FTTN over 21st-22nd century technology. Fits with primitive minded.

  • The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to spook For This Useful Post:

    Bigfella237 (28-10-15),Philbo (07-07-16)

  • #27
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,265
    Thanks
    139
    Thanked 643 Times in 368 Posts
    Rep Power
    454
    Reputation
    10815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gordon_s1942 View Post
    What jgm says is what I was very pathetically trying to say but couldnt as clearly and concisely as he has.
    With wireless you cant just keep adding frequencies to carry the volume of traffic but with cable, Optic Fibre in particular which has several fibres in each cable, should one ever reach its capacity, all you have to do is connect another with no interference to any other and its interference free from almost all external noises.
    Correct me if I am wrong but I believe 2 fibres are used, with each handling 'traffic' in one direction only and I have no idea just much 'traffic' each can handle, let alone be compared to either Copper or a Wireless system.
    In the system deployed by nbn one fibre is used. The same single strand (to use copper terminology) carries both the transmit and receive channels. Each single fibre (there's actually spares in the leadin cable) makes it's way up to the FDH (via increasingly high fibre count bundles) where it is combined with up to 32 other premisies fibres onto... you guessed it a single fibre. That single fibre then makes its way around a ring which eventually ends at the FAN.

    The GPON system deployed by nbn has spare capacity built in at pretty much every stage (well it did under Labor anyway) to allow for future expansion such as block subdivision. But should all that additional capacity be soaked up even then it can still be expanded with a little replugging.

    Suppose that all the ports on the multiport (this is where your leadin plugs in) are in use and someone wants to demo a house and build a block of flats. No worries. Simply unplug the fibre for that premises from the optical splitter at the FDH, plug it into one of the spare FAN ring fibres, then when the block of flats is done, whack an optical splitter in either at the multiport, or stick it in a cabinet on the flats to house the splitter and presto, 32 more completely functional ports, all without puling any new cable to the location.

    Try that with FTTN and see how far you get.
    Last edited by SpankedHam; 27-10-15 at 08:34 PM.

  • The Following User Says Thank You to SpankedHam For This Useful Post:

    Bigfella237 (28-10-15)

  • #28
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    2,106
    Thanks
    252
    Thanked 839 Times in 515 Posts
    Rep Power
    368
    Reputation
    6489

    Default

    There's plenty of arguments against FTTN which have already been discussed in this thread but here's something else to consider. NBNCo themselevs still don't know if they're going to have back up power/UPS for the nodes. For those without the backup battery for UNI-V in the premises, this won't be an issue, but for the sick and elderly with priority phone connections this is a problem. The other point that's been consistenlty touted about the NBN is that everyone is expected to have the same connection experience (saving fixed wireless solutions), such that if you pay for a 100Mb connection you get a 100Mb connection. Clearly under FTTN this isn't likley however they have a solution. Micronodes. If a customer isn't happy with their FTTN connection, NBNCo have advised they'll install a micronode directly in front of the customer premsies to correct this. Failing that, there's also a consideration of running fibre directly to that premsies.

    It's odd they don't publish much about this sort of thing, but they're willing to talk about it in industry breifings. Much like their refusal to outwardly say M2M comms can't be considered reliable over the NBN and passing the buck the RSP or M2M provider to give clarification to the customer. I guess the most telling of all so far however is the DVAs decision to replace their PSTN medical alerts with 3G units.

    One way or the other, regardless of the current state of the NBN, all metro areas will wind up with FTTH eventually. Albeit at a significantly higher cost than if it were done now.

  • #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    693
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked 217 Times in 139 Posts
    Rep Power
    262
    Reputation
    2138

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SpankedHam View Post
    In the system deployed by nbn one fibre is used. The same single strand (to use copper terminology) carries both the transmit and receive channels.
    OK, I wasn't aware of that. I've only been involved in high speed networks where we built in protection by using dual counter rotating rings. If there was a cable break, the rings would loopback automatically at the closest nodes either side of the break.

  • #30
    Premium Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Central Tablelands of NSW
    Age
    81
    Posts
    13,824
    Thanks
    1,242
    Thanked 3,806 Times in 2,525 Posts
    Rep Power
    1797
    Reputation
    56986

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jgm View Post
    OK, I wasn't aware of that. I've only been involved in high speed networks where we built in protection by using dual counter rotating rings. If there was a cable break, the rings would loopback automatically at the closest nodes either side of the break.
    Hey, remember that this is a Government Funded scheme who were being advised by the best 'Experts' that Industry wouldnt employ to make the Morning Tea for the Mail room staff.
    I stand unequivicably behind everything I say , I just dont ever remember saying it !!

  • #31
    Premium Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    3,688
    Thanks
    1,938
    Thanked 2,104 Times in 1,050 Posts
    Rep Power
    967
    Reputation
    32468

    Default

    Hmmm, one thing is sure looks like BS still prevails
    There is a fine line between "Hobby" and "Madness"

  • #32
    Senior Member
    Uncle Fester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Commonly found in a pantry or the bottom of a fridge, searching for grains, fermented or distilled
    Posts
    6,405
    Thanks
    2,289
    Thanked 4,414 Times in 2,517 Posts
    Rep Power
    2046
    Reputation
    81778

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drift View Post
    Clearly under FTTN this isn't likley however they have a solution. Micronodes. If a customer isn't happy with their FTTN connection, NBNCo have advised they'll install a micronode directly in front of the customer premsies to correct this. Failing that, there's also a consideration of running fibre directly to that premsies.

    One way or the other, regardless of the current state of the NBN, all metro areas will wind up with FTTH eventually. Albeit at a significantly higher cost than if it were done now.
    So who then pays for the micronodes or the direct fibre connection?

    As far as I see it FTTN is basically no different to ADSL only that you are supposed to actually get at least 20Mbs somehow, not the 3-4 Mbs I got from Telstra ADSL on a lucky day.

    So what exactly is Turnbull's FTTN anyway? Can somebody shed some light?
    Weren't they using fibre to the DSLAMs in metro areas even before NBN?
    How is a DSLAM any different to a node, and what are they installing now for all the money? What is happening with the last mile(s) of copper? Are there now magical modems that make the speed now happen or what?
    I am talking Fibre/fixed connection here, not wireless.
    Last edited by Uncle Fester; 28-10-15 at 09:25 PM.
    Update: A deletion of features that work well and ain't broke but are deemed outdated in order to add things that are up to date and broken.
    Compatibility: A word soon to be deleted from our dictionaries as it is outdated.
    Humans: Entities that are not only outdated but broken... AI-self-learning-update-error...terminate...terminate...

  • #33
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,265
    Thanks
    139
    Thanked 643 Times in 368 Posts
    Rep Power
    454
    Reputation
    10815

    Default

    Turnbull and nbn have both stated that they'll do everything else they can before installing a micronode. This even means using two pair and, yes, running brand new copper if need be.

  • #34
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,265
    Thanks
    139
    Thanked 643 Times in 368 Posts
    Rep Power
    454
    Reputation
    10815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nomeat View Post
    So who then pays for the micronodes or the direct fibre connection?

    As far as I see it FTTN is basically no different to ADSL only that you are supposed to actually get at least 20Mbs somehow, not the 3-4 Mbs I got from Telstra ADSL on a lucky day.

    So what exactly is Turnbull's FTTN anyway? Can somebody shed some light?
    Weren't they using fibre to the DSLAMs in metro areas even before NBN?
    How is a DSLAM any different to a node, and what are they installing now for all the money? What is happening with the last mile(s) of copper? Are there now magical modems that make the speed now happen or what?
    I am talking Fibre/fixed connection here, not wireless.
    A node can be considered to be a dslam in a box on the footpath instead of at the exchange. The last mile stays put. It won't be touched (joints remade etc) unless a service can't meet the minimum sync rate. VDSL2 (in what will finally be deployed in Australia) uses up to 17MHz compared to ADSL2's 2.2MHz. That's largely where the speed comes from. Given the severe attenuation at those sorts of frequencies, wire lengths can't exceed about 1.2km (single pair).

  • The Following User Says Thank You to SpankedHam For This Useful Post:

    Uncle Fester (29-10-15)

  • #35
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    693
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked 217 Times in 139 Posts
    Rep Power
    262
    Reputation
    2138

    Default

    Who is paying for the remediation of the existing copper? It took Telstra over 5 years to re-do the installation in my street, despite having a tech call on average once every 3 months & then spending around half a day each time to re-do joints up & down the street. Eventually they replaced every box ( and I can see 8 just by looking out the window), and this is an area that is really stable - no new developments and no business premises, and the majority of houses less tha 40 years old.

  • #36
    Administrator
    mtv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    19,893
    Thanks
    7,508
    Thanked 15,066 Times in 6,761 Posts
    Rep Power
    5647
    Reputation
    239305

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jgm View Post
    Who is paying for the remediation of the existing copper?
    As per my post #13

    Turnbull defends NBN's use of copper

    PRIME Minister Malcolm Turnbull has defended the national broadband network's purchase of 1800 kilometres of copper to deliver his vision of fibre to the node.

    THE company told a Senate estimates hearing it has so far purchased $14 million worth of copper and will need more to meet future demand.

    Mr Turnbull told parliament on Wednesday the design of the NBN requires new copper to connect the nodes to existing Telstra pillars.
    There will no doubt be areas where copper to the premises will also need to be replaced.

    As I said... false economy, as fibre is cheaper than copper.

  • #37
    Senior Member
    Uncle Fester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Commonly found in a pantry or the bottom of a fridge, searching for grains, fermented or distilled
    Posts
    6,405
    Thanks
    2,289
    Thanked 4,414 Times in 2,517 Posts
    Rep Power
    2046
    Reputation
    81778

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SpankedHam View Post
    Turnbull and nbn have both stated that they'll do everything else they can before installing a micronode. This even means using two pair and, yes, running brand new copper if need be.
    ...so in other words, under no circumstances use fibre even if it might actually turn out to be cheaper?

    It is a wonder that Turnbull's NBN doesn't decide to rip out all the existing FTTH connections and replace them with copper. Perhaps under the motto 'Fair for all'.
    Why should some have better connections than others !
    I wouldn't be surprised with all their 'forward' thinking.

    This all kind of reminds me of the Sydney Tram network.
    In the 1940's they had one of the largest tram networks in the world.
    Obviously this old fashioned system had to be removed around 1960.
    Much later they built a monorail. IMO sort of an interesting idea to get transport off the roads but I suppose they didn't know how to utilise it, much like NBN.
    So they decided to destroy the monorail and build now a tram network in Sydney CBD for billions and huge impediment of business and peak hour traffic for the next three years.
    ... well THAT is progress ! Copper it is !

    Perhaps in 30-40 years Australia might actually have a useful data network for 10x the cost it would have costed us today including loss of income that a functioning NBN network would have provided and of course paid itself back.
    Last edited by Uncle Fester; 29-10-15 at 01:13 PM.
    Update: A deletion of features that work well and ain't broke but are deemed outdated in order to add things that are up to date and broken.
    Compatibility: A word soon to be deleted from our dictionaries as it is outdated.
    Humans: Entities that are not only outdated but broken... AI-self-learning-update-error...terminate...terminate...

  • #38
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,265
    Thanks
    139
    Thanked 643 Times in 368 Posts
    Rep Power
    454
    Reputation
    10815

    Default

    Unofficially that's pretty much it. Mal's solution is technology agnostic, so long as it involves running over copper. Preferably beat up failing 40 + year old copper.

  • #39
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Newcastle, Nsw
    Posts
    4,604
    Thanks
    815
    Thanked 2,531 Times in 1,138 Posts
    Rep Power
    1178
    Reputation
    41376

    Default

    Well I just signed up with Telstra and have a connection date for Friday.
    Scored a free 100/40 speed boost.

    I'm a bit over 500 meters from the node and from their end my connection speed is estimated to be 78Mb/sec.
    I hope they're right.

  • #40
    Premium Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Central Tablelands of NSW
    Age
    81
    Posts
    13,824
    Thanks
    1,242
    Thanked 3,806 Times in 2,525 Posts
    Rep Power
    1797
    Reputation
    56986

    Default

    Dont forget under no circumstances can or will Fibre be used direct to the premises UNLESS the customer requests it and pays for it and even so, this will only be available to Business, not private users.
    I sure it was pre election time that Turnball stated when announcing the LNP policy on Broadband going FTTN and not to the FTTH system, Fibre would be available only where it was required because of the volume of traffic such as a business or industry and the user paid for the installation which was basically a sop to shut up those powerful enough for their complaints to be listened to.
    Even now to go back on this policy even though its becoming clearer that although FTTN is cheaper and faster to install than FTTH as previously proposed, it would be loading the Political Gun with too many silver Bullets for the Opposition to fire and could do serious damage electorally depending on the political climate at that time.
    Last edited by gordon_s1942; 30-11-15 at 03:00 PM.
    I stand unequivicably behind everything I say , I just dont ever remember saying it !!

  • Page 2 of 17 FirstFirst 123456789101112 ... LastLast

    Bookmarks

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •